“It is of course nonsense, as all actual historians know. In fact, all Persians considered themselves the slaves of the King of Kings, and were proud of it.”
I’d be interested in a couple of independent links (not based on or related to Herodotus description).
P.S. - am unsure what you mean by ‘slave’ in the context of Cyrus, in relation to ‘slaves’ being proud of their King of Kings.
The word ‘subject’ like a British subject in a monarchy system comes to mind, and would be much more correct.
Other words such as ‘dependence’ also comes to mind. As do prisoners (of war) regarding what you suggest to be slavery.
Slave as in trading people existed when Cyrus came to power. Mostly in the lands he conquered thereafter. He was against slavery as he clearly states in his human rights charter. Furthermore he was pro religious freedom.
Today, i can be called a slave of my employer because i am dependent on him/her to earn income. If i have debts i can’t pay then i can be called a slave too. I’ll have to either serve a prison term or at least do community, no pay work. I can be called a slave.
As for Herodotus, ‘actual’ modern historians take his descriptions with a very large grain of salt.
According to Pierre Briant (in his publication From Cyrus to Alexander): “It is hard to separate history from fairly tale in Herodotus”.
I’ve read Herodotus and he seems real confused about many things he observed during his adventures, especially in iran.
His descriptions were written from his a Greek perspective, and just as bias as those presumably written to favor Cyrus.
There is more about pre-islamic iranians & how/why slavery was not part of iranian (persian) social or cultural structure. Maybe more on that later.
Not easy to find. As stated, the web is overrun with the meme that ancient Persians were abolitionists.
http://www.academia.edu/9989249/Slavery_in_Islam_vs._Late_Antiquity
http://bigpicturehistory.com/the-history-of-slavery/
http://www.hierarchystructure.com/ancient-persian-social-hierarchy/
http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=slavery-as-an-ancient-world-institution
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Parthian.html
https://www.suu.edu/faculty/ping/pdf/PersianEmpireandAthens.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Slavery_in_Iran#Disputed
However, here was perhaps the best site: http://histclo.com/act/work/slave/anc/sa-spe.html
It should be noted that some of the above sites are discussing periods of Persian/Iranian history later than the Achaemenid, such as Parthians or Sassanids. However, all later Persian dynasties revered the Achaemenids and claimed to be reproducing their way of life.
It should also be noted that the Acheamenid Empire, by its very policy of ruling lightly, left local institutions such as slavery largely untouched in the provinces.
Don’t get me wrong, I thought 300 was really silly. The Persian/Greek wars were not between slave and free peoples. They were between peoples ruled by an absolute monarch and ruled by an aristocracy, albeit often a pretty large aristocracy. I also am aware that by the standards of previous and later empires the Achaemenids were quite tolerant and kind to their subjects.
However, the Persians were very clear about the whole absolute monarch bit. More or less by definition, all subjects of a truly absolute monarch are his slaves. He can at will dispose of their libes, their families and their property. History has many examples of the Persian kings doing exactly that.
The whole subject is also obscured by the fact that we speak of “slave” and “free.” But those are concepts that didn’t always apply in the ancient world. Many people lived in legal conditions that were in between or didn’t fit neatly into either category. Also, many slaves, especially of the King became wealthy and powerful.
Found some better info. Here’s a good description. When Cyrus and the Persians conquered the Middle East, they were still quite primitive. Their social institutions, including slavery, were not well defined. They quickly got over that and imitated the customs of their new subjects in Babylon and elsewhere.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/barda-i
Moe critically, much of the meme that the Persians were abolitionists is based on the Cyrus Cylinder. Found a translation. Pretty tough to extract the 13th Amendment from it, IMO.
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/articles/c/cyrus_cylinder_-_translation.aspx
IOW, I think people read into the Cyrus Cylinder and the other very limited documentation from that period what they want to believe. Most of these are probably anti-Western leftists. Some perhaps are Iranian nationalists, though they’re faced with the dilemma that if they claim pre-Muslim Iran was slave-free they have to admit Islam brought the institution in.
None of this should be construed as making the Greeks or Romans look better. Both societies, especially Rome, were much more heavily based on slavery than any of the pre-Muslim Iranian societies.